- 04:59 AM
- 11/22/09
Not even a little.
posted by cjets at 08:57 PM on November 19
Video of the Thierry Henry goal.
posted by cjets at 10:43 PM on November 18
"You never want to be the less aggressive team." Really?
I think it's problematic as well. By what method do you determine who's being more aggressive?
posted by cjets at 05:59 PM on November 18
I was watching the game live and I said, at the time, if Peyton gets the ball back, he's gonna win. So I can understand what Belichick was thinking.
But I still think you have to punt. The Colts still have to play flawless football to drive 70 - 80 yards for a TD in 2 minutes with only one timeout. If Belichick doesn't trust his defense to do that, that sends a major message to his defense.
I don't think the number crunching gives a clear answer that Belichick was right to go for it. Most coaches would never do that in the same situation. I think most coaches are right, and the outcome of this game lends support to that position.
Yes. When you go against NFL SOP and you fail, you are going to hear some major criticism. Had the Colts driven 70 - 80 yards to score a TD, I can't imagine anyone criticizing Belichick for not going for it on 4th.
posted by cjets at 12:13 PM on November 16
Didn't Barry Switzer do the same thing back in the 90's when he was coaching the Cowboys?
posted by cjets at 12:37 AM on November 16
Just for shits and giggles, here are Jordan's highlights from the same link:
BULLS CAREER HIGHLIGHTS: Led the Bulls to six NBA World Championships (1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998) NBA MVP 1987-88, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1995-96, 1997-98 NBA Finals MVP 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998 NBA All-Star Game MVP 1988, 1996, 1998 NBA Rookie of the Year 1984-85 NBA Defensive Player of the Year 1987-88 NBA All-Star 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998 named to the NBA's list of 50 greatest players in NBA history member of 1984 and 1992 USA Olympic gold medal-winning basketball teams led the league in scoring 10 times Bulls all-time leader in scoring (29, 277 points), rebounds (5,836), assists (5,012), steals (2,306) and games played (930).
Yep. Best I ever saw.
posted by cjets at 03:29 PM on November 13
but maybe the Bulls should be the ones to have #23 retired.
posted by cjets at 03:27 PM on November 13
It seemed pretty clear from your first Wikipedia fishing expedition that for all of Iverson's oh-so-terrible rep you didn't have a very strong grasp of anything bad he supposedly did.
No. I was putting my five year old and one year old to bed so I quickly cut and pasted from Wikipedia. I know you understand nuance Rcade. But either you don't understand it here or I am not making myself clear.
He's a hall of fame player with superlative talent (as I said earlier). But he's got a bad attitude/poor judgement, he's not a team player and he's selfish. That's why he doesn't have any rings and that's why his stay on every team he's been with has ended badly.
This does not mean he's a criminal or a thug or anything else. It just means that with the exception of one year (2001), he was a me-first guy who didn't like to practice, pass to teammates or otherwise act as a team leader.
George Karl on Iverson:
But you've also extrapolated a reputation for him based on a handful of incidents, most of them in the far past.
In the last three years, he's had problems with the Sixers, the Pistons and the Grizzlies. He may not have had "problems" with the Nuggets, but his coach had on court issues with him and the team did much better after he left.
posted by cjets at 04:59 PM on November 11
You remember him as a troublemaker, so you went looking for examples of trouble you didn't actually remember. It's self-fulfilling.
If you disagree with me fine. Please do me the favor of not telling me what I did or did not remember. I remembered that he had a fallout with the Sixers. Did I remember all the details? No. So what? If he wasn't a troublemaker, those examples wouldn't be there.
Let's not forget that the only reason we're talking about him today is he left the Grizzlies for "personal reasons" 8 games into the season. Another black mark.
You can keep choosing to make excuses for him. I choose not to.
posted by cjets at 02:35 PM on November 11
And in Jordan's first 7 seasons, he was known as a selfish ball hog and his teammates were being called the Jordanaires because the consensus around the league was that they would all just watch as Jordan would go 1 vs 5 and if you stopped Jordan, his teammates would not come thru in the clutch.
So what? He went on to win six rings and made his teammates better. Iverson never learned to do that. At this point, Stephon Marbury is as likely to win a ring as Iverson is.
posted by cjets at 12:34 PM on November 11
You probably had to go to Wikipedia just to remember any of it. It's not that unusual for a marquee player's trade from a lousy team to be preceded by some internal strife. That doesn't invalidate the 10 seasons in which he played well enough in Philly to be a 10-time All Star.
I certainly remember him being a selfish player and a troublemaker. I went to wikipedia for the specifics as well as a cite to back up my claim.
Here's my first sentence in this post: There's no denying Iverson was a superlative talent. And he'll certainly get in the hall of fame. But the difference between him and actual NBA champions is his work ethic, his inability to be a team player and his selfishness.
Ten or twenty years from now, Iverson will be best remembered for his ranting about practice. That tells you all you need to know about him.
And dfleming, well said.
posted by cjets at 12:32 PM on November 11
Iverson spent his first 10 seasons in Philly and asked for a trade in 2006 after three straight losing seasons when the team was entering rebuilding mode.
Really? I think it was a bit uglier than that.
He went to Denver
Who immediately became a championship contender AFTER he left. I don't have a cite for it but I believe Coach Karl got very sick of his act as well.
was traded to Detroit
And now there's the latest incident with the Grizzlies, not to mention his infamous "practice" rant, and his rep as a selfish me -first player. It sure seems like a bad attitude to me.
posted by cjets at 11:03 PM on November 10
Some of that was true early in Iverson's pro career, but by the time he reached the NBA Finals he was a changed man and a more mature one.
I guess that's why the Sixers were about to trade him just before the 2000 - 2001 season, unless you're saying that he matured that season? And where was his maturity when he wore out his welcome in Philly, Denver and Detroit, as well as this latest incident?
I think it's bogus to dredge up that Virginia incident, which has selective prosecution written all over it. He was 17 years old, none of the whites involved in the group fight were ever arrested, the felony charge is overzealous prosecution and Iverson was granted clemency.
It's relevant because it shows a history of poor judgement on his part. And he seems to still be showing that same poor judgement today.
It's too bad, because he did have the ability to be Jordanesque (or at least enjoy that success that Isiah Thomas, the player, had) but he kept getting in his own way.
posted by cjets at 09:28 PM on November 10
There's no denying Iverson was a superlative talent. But to compare him to Jordan is ludicrous. He simply lacked the work ethic and other qualities (humility, self awareness? I'm struggling for the right adjective here) to be a great teammate and leader. Even the Sixers wanted to trade him before the 2000-2001 season when he led them to the finals and won an MVP. This guy was always trouble.
Jordan may have been considered an asshole by his teammates but he made them better and led them to six championships. All Iverson wanted and wants are his touches.
Even Iverson's experiences in high school indicated that this would end badly for him (from wikipedia).
posted by cjets at 05:07 PM on November 10
That an intelligent sports community should ignore what is measurable and real and instead discuss AJ throwing pies, well, again, seems comical.
Why can't the community discuss both? The Yankees have had this enormous financial advantage for several years. Why is this the first time they've won? Maybe good team chemistry did have something to do with it. And why should Yankee fans be banished to another site to discuss it?
The Payroll is certainly worthy of discussion but it shouldn't be the whole discussion.
posted by cjets at 10:04 PM on November 06
The Yankees paid the "small-market clubs" $26.9 million this year. Find out where that money went, then explain how MORE revenue sharing is any kind of solution.
Establish a salary cap with a reasonable floor as well as a maximum and that should solve that problem.
posted by cjets at 10:08 PM on November 05
Maybe, maybe not. Cheat mode isn't really cheating in videogames -- it's exploiting a special advantage.
OK. I think Posnanski wants to have his cake and eat it too. But I see your point. Let me take it a step further.
I think that the Yankes should be commended for making a commitment to winning the world series every year. Isn't that what every fan wants? To sign every great free agent? Wouldn't they be betraying their fans if they didn't "exploit their special advantage?"
Would you rather they were buying up adjoining Malibu mansions (the McCourts) or paying for divorce attorneys (The McCourts again) or investing with Bernie Madoff (The Mets) or investing their money in their team?
Don't get me wrong. Baseball needs more revenue sharing and a salary cap. But until that time, I don't think the Yankees can be faulted for spending like champions.
posted by cjets at 07:55 PM on November 05
I don't think anyone is saying they are cheating as in breaking the rules, but they're saying that the present situation is unfair.
Here's the quote I pulled from the Posnanski article: You have one team (and only one team) playing the video game on cheat-mode.
It sure sounds like he's calling them cheaters. And I agree that the situation is unfair. But the emphasis should be on MLB for allowing this, not the Yankees.
posted by cjets at 06:42 PM on November 05
You have one team (and only one team) playing the video game on cheat-mode.
As I said earlier, I think baseball should have more revenue sharing as well as a salary cap.
But that being said, how are the Yankees cheating? Because they spend way more money than other teams? Where in the MLB by-laws is that illegal?
As I also said earlier, this is a systemic problem. I think that you have a point. I just think the problem lies with the MLB, not with the Yankees.
And until MLB changes its rules to allow for a more even playing field, why shouldn't they do everything they can to win the World Series every year?
In 2004, the Yankees spent $57 million more in payroll than any other team. I mean, it's ridiculous from the start but this is pure absurdity. Basically, this is like the Yankees saying: "OK, let's spend exactly as much as the second-highest payroll in baseball. OK, we're spending exactly as much. And now let's add the Oakland A's. No, I mean let's add their whole team, the whole payroll, add it on top and let's play some ball!"
In 2005, the Yankees spent $85 million more than any other team. Not a misprint. Eight five. In 2006, the Yankees spent $74 million more than any other team. In 2007, the Yankees spent $40 million more than any other team cutbacks, you know. In 2008, the Yankees spent $72 million more than any other team. In 2009, the Yankees spent $52 million more than any other team.
And yet, with all that spending, the Yankees couldn't get out of the ALDS in 2005-2007 and didn't even make the playoffs in 2008, so all that money doesn't always buy championships.
posted by cjets at 06:07 PM on November 05
I just would say it's the revenue sharing and not the salary cap that makes the league even
I'd suggest that the revenue sharing and the salary cap go hand in hand. And without a salary cap, you could have the big market teams dominate the league (with the exception of Dan Snyder, of course).
I'd further suggest that the successful teams are the ones with great team management. The Rooneys, for example. Or the Patriots since Kraft purchased them. OTOH, the Redskins are supposedly the highest valued team in the NFL, yet what does that get them?.
unless your theory also encompasses why the Royals and Chiefs are equally inept.
In the fifteen years since the salary cap was instituted, The Chiefs have had a winning record 8 of those years and have made the playoffs 5 of those years (and made it as recently as 2006). The reason the Chiefs stink now has a lot more to do with team management than the fact that it is a small market city. I'd bet that the Chiefs make the playoffs again in the next 5-7 years. That would be extremely unlikely for the Royals. So I'd suggest the coincidence is the Royals and Chiefs both playing poorly, not the disparity between the Steelers and the Bucs.
posted by cjets at 01:41 PM on November 05
I think I would prefer real revenue sharing.
Agreed.
The bulk of team revenue comes from national TV contracts which they all split equally. Additionally, they NFL splits gate receipts pretty evenly. So that all means teams are closer to even footing, but try telling Bills fans they have just as much chance as the Giants.
You seem to be making my argument for me regarding the revenue sharing. And why don't the Bills have as much chance as the Giants? I think team management is much more important than a big market-small market difference.
I think a more fitting comparison is the world champion Steelers and the perennial also-ran Pirates.
posted by cjets at 12:04 PM on November 05
But fans of the team should admit that maybe, quite possibly, the massive financial advantage of the team plays a role in that.
I think many Yankee fans will admit that. What they won't admit is the Yankees are doing something wrong. The Yankees make a massive amount of money and reinvest it in the team. Would you prefer that the Steinbrenners hoard it instead?
I'd agree that there is a financial imbalance in MLB. But it's a systemic problem that needs to be addressed by MLB, not by the Yankees.
One of the reasons that the NFL is so popular is the salary cap and revenue sharing. Any team, regardless of market size, has a legitimate opportunity to win the super bowl.
posted by cjets at 11:29 AM on November 05
I don't understand why the Mets, Dodgers, Cubs and teams in other big markets can't spend money.
The Mets claim that they lost a bundle to Madoff. Frank McCourt leveraged everything he owned to buy the Dodgers (and now with the divorce the Dodgers are really f**ked). The Cubs? I don't know. Didn't they just get sold by the Tribune?
posted by cjets at 11:17 AM on November 05
The everyday people she's referring to that have to find a way to struggle on despite all odds? That's not the Yankees, for god's sake.
I'd bet that there are just as many poor and unemployed Yankee FANS as there are fans of any other team. And for these fans, the win was a brief bit of good news.
posted by cjets at 10:04 AM on November 05
I don't agree that its one thing to have a physical altercation with another man in the testosterone-fueled world of the NFL and another to hit a women. It shows a pattern and a tendency towards violence that Cable obviously has trouble controlling.
While I'd agree that it shows a pattern on the part of Cable, domestic violence and getting into a fight with another coach are very different things.
Domestic violence is a major societal problem. Over 500,00 women are stalked by an intimate partner each year. 5.3 million women are abused each year. 1,232 women are killed each year by an intimate partner.
Every time an athlete/coach gets away with beating his wife/GF, it sets a very ugly precedent for society. For that reason alone, the domestic violence should be treated more seriously.
But I can't help but think that beating a woman is worse than going after another football coach, someone that you would expect could defend himself (I reserve the right to rescind these remarks if Cable hit him in the back of the head or otherwise sucker punched him).
rcade, I left my judgement wood in the deleted graph
posted by cjets at 06:38 PM on November 04
Why is Ann Killion giving Cable a pass for assaulting Randy Hanson?
She's not giving him a pass. She's saying it's a lot worse that he has a history of beating women. I'd agree with that.
posted by cjets at 12:09 PM on November 04
As a cyclist in L.A. I've followed the case with some interest. Here's the L.A. Times article.
This wasn't the first time he's tried this:
But prosecutors alleged Thompson had a history of run-ins with bike riders, including a similar episode four months before the 2008 incident, when two cyclists told police that the doctor tried to run them off the road and braked hard in front of them. Neither of the riders was injured.
And, at the end of the day, this is nothing more than a road rage incident:
Prosecutors alleged that Thompson stopped his car after passing the two cyclists and shouting at them to ride single file. The cyclists testified that they began maneuvering to ride one after the other when they noticed Thompson's car approaching fast behind them but that the driver passed dangerously close before abruptly stopping.
Ron Peterson, a coach for USC's and UCLA's cycling team, was flung face-first into the rear windshield of the doctor's red Infiniti, breaking his front teeth and nose and lacerating his face. Christian Stoehr, the other cyclist, hurtled to the sidewalk and suffered a separated shoulder.
A police officer testified that Thompson told him soon after the accident that the cyclists had cursed at him and flipped him off, so he slammed on his brakes "to teach them a lesson."
The road where this happened, Mandeville Canyon, is an extremely wealthy, exclusive area. I have no doubt the cops would be more than happy to respond to complaints from residents about cyclists.
As a non-cyclist driver, I don't want to shoulder any blame for all the morons driving cars either.
Exactly. Just as there are good cyclists and bad cyclists, there are good drivers and bad drivers (And none of the good drivers live in L.A.).
Every time I've ridden my bike in L.A. some moron driver has done something to put me at risk. It's much more ignorance than maliciousness but cyclists certainly do not have a monopoly on moving violations.
And in L.A., bicycle lanes are few and far between so a cyclist rides at his own peril, usually sandwiched between parked cars and cars doing 50 MPH in a 30 zone.
I'm all for everyone following the traffic laws, drivers and cyclists alike.
posted by cjets at 03:16 PM on November 03
Fox sports never ceases to amaze me.
posted by cjets at 06:21 PM on November 01
And, plaintiff's attorneys can definitely not be blamed for any vaccine related problems because you absolutely cannot sue a company for a defective vaccine. There is a special quasi-judicial, federal system that sets reimbursements for injuries from vaccines, and it is intentionally set for fairly low reimbursement rates.
The vaccine courts do exist. But there is case after case after case brought in state and federal courts trying to get around the vaccine courts. And Andrew Wakefield, noted anti-vaxxer and fraud was funded by attorneys.
The London Sunday Times reported that some of the parents of the 12 children in the Lancet study were recruited via a UK lawyer preparing a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers, and that the Royal Free Hospital had received 55,000 from the UK's Legal Aid Board (now the Legal Services Commission) to pay for the research into what happened to their normally developing children who regressed into autism.
RFK Jr. is another noted anti-vaxxer and trial attorney on the hunt for the deep pockets of big pharma.
Autism's false prophets is a great read on how plaintiff's attorney's fund this bad science.
END SECOND DERAIL
posted by cjets at 06:52 PM on October 30
Going after deep pockets is not just a strategy employed to keep lawyers rich (though it's probably the lawyer's most important strategy), but larger fines result in more piblicity and offer a greater potential for more widespread change. Nothing changes if a big wallet isn't hit.
Yes, but way too many lawyers don't care widespread change or making things safer. They just want to line their pockets. And the only publicity they care about is lining up the next big money case.
posted by cjets at 05:57 PM on October 30
Why aren't we suing and/ or arresting these kids? They're the ones hitting the balls.
Do you want an answer or is this just snark? I'll answer it regardless. Using a reasonable man standard, the league and the coaches should be aware that a ball is going to come off the bat quicker.
It's not reasonable to expect an eighteen year old would know that.
If the lawsuit were entered against the parties truly at fault, it would have included the league (for allowing the use of dangerous bats) and the American Legion (for sponsoring leagues that allow the bats), as well as the bat manufacturer. I'm sure the attorney for the parents adhered to the old legal maxim, "Always go after the defendant with the deepest pockets".
Exactly. (One might notice that I said something very similar).
Laws on consumer protection are incredibly limited, and enforcement of the laws are even more limited. Companies are as honest as they are because the ramifications of lawsuits could destroy their business. Litigation is the only thing that stopped manufacturers from using asbestos. They knew about the risks for more than 40 years, but disregarded it. Then, it started costing them money. That is when the industry changed.
Everything you say is correct. However, changing consumer protection laws through litigation is a horrible way to go about it. Tort reform is long overdue. Usually, the only people who get rich are the attorneys and it results in labeling and warnings made for the stupidest people in society so that a manufacturer can lessen legal liabilty.
The end result in this case may be a good one. But I think what you're seeing in alot of these posts is a natural and well earned distrust of lawyers.
DERAIL For example, plaintiff's attorneys are a MAJOR reason behind the distrust of vaccines. Nobody likes big pharma and they are a very deep pocket. But the distrust plaintiff's attorneys endenger when they fund shoddy and bias research into vaccines has pervaded society. This will lead to hundreds if not thousands of kids dying because their parents won't give them necessary vaccines. There was already a measles outbreak in San Diego because parents won't give Kids the MMR shots. This is what happens in a society when litigation runs rampant. END DERAIL
posted by cjets at 05:22 PM on October 30
While I agree that aluminum bats are more dangerous than wooden bats, why go after the manufacturer?
Why not sue the American Legion for allowing the players to use aluminum bats, or the Helena Senators for using the bats or even Patch's own team for allowing them to play when these bats are being used?
To answer my own question. Because Louisville Slugger are the deep pockets.
While I wouldn't the lawsuit frivolous, I would call it misguided.
posted by cjets at 01:27 PM on October 30
The real lesson is never ever, no matter who you are or what you do, talk to Deion "Jesus helped me fly my car over a cliff" Sanders again.
posted by cjets at 04:20 PM on October 29
That's a great theory, but one of the best things many people had going for them for centuries was the ability to cool off and think things through before they ever had to consider exposing their every thought and word to millions of people.
But they don't have to expose their thoughts to millions. They choose to. It's like natural selection in reverse.
posted by cjets at 07:13 PM on October 28
This tweeting/facebook/myspace crap is getting out of hand.
In one sense, definitely. On the other hand, isn't it a sort of technological darwinism? Survival of the fittest means mentally fit as well.
posted by cjets at 05:33 PM on October 28
Vive l' ZorntoLargent!
How about just "Vive L'Argent" (which, very loosely translated, means "Long Live the Money").
Or, if you want to be technical about it: "Vive L'Argent de Zorn."
Snyder has now guaranteed that no top caliber coach is going to want the Washington job.
There are only 32 head coaching jobs in the NFL, so, as odious as Snyder is, it's likely that he finds someone of quality especially if he throws enough money at him.
posted by cjets at 05:53 PM on October 22
Thanks Mr. B. I'm forwarding your links to Rex Ryan as it is clear he has no idea what the wildcat offense is.
posted by cjets at 07:13 PM on October 21
Since you think she's "heinous," I simply challenged you to think about how that would factor into the other stuff you've said.
I did think about it. And I completely disagree with your take on it. Her "immaturity" as you put it, is not an excuse for stalking his wife and children. She's a criminal and who knows what she might have done next. Anyone remember Amy Fisher?
And there were other options open to her if she felt wronged. Such as a multi-million dollar sexual harassment suit. And had she played it that way, I would not have uttered one word about her appearance. Because in that case she would have been a victim and not fair game.
This would be an easier discussion to have if you'd stop popping judgment wood. I think we're all clear on your disapproval.
Please. I disapproved of her. You guys disapproved of me. It's the circle of life. And what is the discussion you want to have? I think crazy stalker lady is fair game. Several of you don't.
You want to keep discussing it? I promise no more comments about her appearance.
posted by cjets at 06:34 PM on October 21
cjets - the part I find objectionable is the implication that the situation and people involved are more deplorable because she's unattractive, or that Phillips wouldn't be as much of a shitheel if he'd been sleeping with a hot 22-year-old coworker.
Ufez, I can understand your point but it's not my implication at all. I think he would be even more of a shitheel if she were hot because I would assume that there was more coercion or harassment on his part to get her to sleep with him.
posted by cjets at 05:43 PM on October 21
Since you've put so much thought into her appearance, you should consider whether a person who looks like her would have any experience at all that could prepare her for a sexual affair with a famous older man like Phillips.
So your argument is that she's too ugly to have had enough sexual experience to handle a situation like this? Isn't that just as bad? And patronizing?
But that letter and her conduct, if true, are amazingly immature for a 22-year-old.
Immature? Or batshit insane? Stalkers come in all sizes and shapes. She shouldn't get a pass because of her age or her looks. Nor should Phillips. Fired and divorced is too good for him.
posted by cjets at 05:35 PM on October 21
If the letter is legit, it makes the woman look like somebody who made the mistake of believing all the lines fed to her by a womanizer. Her alleged stalking of Phillips' family is way out of line, but people can be incredibly stupid in the name of love.
Really rcade? She's a victim of love? She's 22. That makes her an adult. She chose to sleep with a married man old enough to be her father. He's also a public figure. As far as "believing all the lines," who knows what he said to her. And given that he's cheating on his wife shouldn't she have some inkling that he's full of shit?
And her actions were not over the line, they're criminal. She stalked his wife and his son. She deserves more than ridicule, she deserves criminal charges.
they could mention that I was often a vocal opponent of the "BOYZONE" complaints at MetaFilter
I thought about those metafilter boyzone arguments as well. But as I recall, they were more about gratuitous remarks made by people about the appearance of a female writer or blogger or scientist, something where her appearance really had no bearing on the situation.
In this situation, a sex scandal, I think her appearance is relevant. And for those who say I'm juvenile, I have to wonder when the PC police deputized you. As far as piling on, she chose to have an affair with a married man and stalk him. She deserves it and more.
So from THX and myself: Nyaa, Nyaa, Nyaa, Nyaa.
posted by cjets at 04:54 PM on October 21
Reading all the comments regarding her appearance reminds me of the lunch room in high school.
Sorry Bo, but she's heinous. And given the context (he destroyed his marriage to have sex with her), I think her looks, or lack therof, are fair game.
And, his picking someone so heinous tells you everything you need to know about his tenure as the Mets GM.
posted by cjets at 02:35 PM on October 21
From the article:
This revelation, along with the sordid Steve McNair murder, should serve as a lesson to any guy thinking of cheatingyou're gonna get caught, and it's gonna get ugly.
Looks like this one started out ugly.
posted by cjets at 02:07 PM on October 21
Good to see he's no better at picking mistresses than he was at identifying major league talent.
posted by cjets at 02:03 PM on October 21
Here's Simers on the break up from today's L.A. Times:
AS FOR the McCourts, I would guess the nickname the Screaming Meanie probably hits a little too close to home, but I can hardly go with the one I used previously, Frank's Old Lady.
With all that has been written about them on Page 2, there's never been the suggestion here they are bad people. They might be great parents and dear friends to those who know them.
As for running the Dodgers, they were learning on the job, too often appearing clueless. But right now they are people with troubles, and no one likes to see such a thing. Their timing, though, remains horrendous.
Here are two people who wouldn't acknowledge for weeks and weeks they were going to be the owners of the Dodgers, ignoring the criticism but suddenly going magpie with their personal problems just hours before the Dodgers were going to make their pitch for a World Series invite.
For two people who spent an inordinate amount of money going through image makers the last five years, when they needed someone the most to whisper in their ears to just shush up for a few more weeks, their last hire was already out looking for work.
WHEN THIS McCourt business is finally resolved, I just want to know, who gets custody of Lasorda?
posted by cjets at 12:27 PM on October 16
since it is in both Frank & Jamie's best interest @ this point to not to make a big deal of this.
If that's the case, why not wait to make the announcement until November.
If the dodgers make the World Series, I think this story will get a lot of play.
posted by cjets at 03:00 PM on October 15
Now that it's front page news in the L.A. Times, I thought I'd upgrade it to an FPP.
Still no reaction from T.J. Simers.
posted by cjets at 10:26 AM on October 15
How are the Titans this bad?
They really miss Albert Haynesworth.
posted by cjets at 12:10 PM on October 12
As hated as some owners are, is anyone picking up steam like Dan Snyder is?
From the day he purchased the club and fired 50 (?) long time R----- employees, this nasty little prick has been the worst owner in football.
posted by cjets at 12:07 PM on October 12
By those measures, I'd say the Cubs are the best fans.
Until they welcome Steve Bartman back to Wrigley with a standing ovation, they shouldn't be considered anyone's best fans.
posted by cjets at 03:58 PM on October 11
Here's an article from the Daily news on the trade.
The NY papers seem to love the trade. I'm not so sure. But I do love the fact that they're still taking risks even after a surprising 3-1 start. And they seem to have gotten him when his trade value has bottomed out (I hope).
And ex coach Mangini seems to be doing his part to help the Jets. First Sanchez, now Edwards.
posted by cjets at 12:33 PM on October 07
They should have been able to put the game away last night and wound up just hanging on at the end.
This isn't college. They don't rate the quality of the W. They just count the W.
With the exception of the Pats in 2007, no team has looked dominant all season. And we all know what happened to the Pats.
posted by cjets at 04:04 PM on October 06
Chris "Airin'" Burr-man splashed the clip all over his MNF halftime show.
Do people actually still enjoy Berman? If I want to relive painfully bad 80's shtick, I can just go to a springsteen concert.
posted by cjets at 04:00 PM on October 06
Has anyone looked at the crime statistics for Rio in particular and Brasil in general? I'm amazed that it didn't come up in the discussion about it's selection.
But couldn't you say the same about Chicago? In 2008, Chicago had more murders than New York or L.A.
Kevin Powell makes some excellent points in my least favorite blog of all time.
That's a debate worth having. Not these ridiculous charges of cronyism.
posted by cjets at 05:54 PM on October 02
as a candidate who pleged to restore the favorable impression of America with foreign countrys,
And though I'm not thrilled with some of his domestic policy decisions, I think he has done much to restore our standing in the international community.
I'll admit, given his predecessor, that's not too difficult a task.
posted by cjets at 04:44 PM on October 02
and cjets, isn't Sheed kind of likable in the same way ochocinco is?
I don't really consider them similar. At his best, Ochocinco liked the over the top celebrations when he scored. Sheed is a guy with anger management issues on the court that have hurt him and his team.
I don't dislike him, I just don't think he's a "really likeable player." But that's OK. He'll still help get the Celtics to the finals.
Then they can ship that banner to L.A. after the Lakers beat them.
posted by cjets at 04:40 PM on October 02
This president is just like all the others, and frankly made a dumb move (one of many). Chicago was in the running but as soon as the President and his wife got involved it ruined it for Chicago.
First, it was obvious he was involved due to being from Chicago and had political debts to pay as well as a personal agenda.
You want to provide a cite, a quote from the IOC or other foreign leader for your astute political analysis? Or should we just take your word for it?
posted by cjets at 04:34 PM on October 02
I can't believe that the President actually wasted his time just to try to pay off some political debts. (Please note that one of his senior advisers is closely connected with real estate development companies in Chicago.)
Maybe next time he should just appoint the advisor to some post where he wouldn't cause any trouble....like running FEMA.
posted by cjets at 03:45 PM on October 02
Plaxico Burress would be roaming free.
With a loaded gun that he clearly doesn't know how to use.
Yup. That sounds safe to me.
posted by cjets at 01:59 PM on October 02
Entire Wedding Party Wearing Ravens Jerseys
However, I don't think I would post it on the internet, or call attention to it to anyone other than the people who were there. It is my and my groom's day, and the hell with everyone else.
I think that's what makes the difference between charming and being an attention whore.